CanesSkins26 wrote:You can also point to all the statistics that you want, but when I think of elite NFL defenses I certainly don't think of ours. I think of the Steelers, Ravens, and Titans, aggressive teams that get after the qb and force turnovers. We are not at that level and wont be until we can generate a consistent pass rush.

Well, the Steelers and Ravens ranked 1st and 2nd respectfully in total defense. The Titans ranked 7th, three spots lower than the 4th ranked Skins. Just because your "favorite" ( ) team doesn't come to your mind when thinking of elite defenses, the numbers prove otherwise and can't be discounted.

CanesSkins26 wrote:You can also point to all the statistics that you want, but when I think of elite NFL defenses I certainly don't think of ours. I think of the Steelers, Ravens, and Titans, aggressive teams that get after the qb and force turnovers. We are not at that level and wont be until we can generate a consistent pass rush.

Well, the Steelers and Ravens ranked 1st and 2nd respectfully in total defense. The Titans ranked 7th, three spots lower than the 4th ranked Skins. Just because your "favorite" ( ) team doesn't come to your mind when thinking of elite defenses, the numbers prove otherwise and can't be discounted.

So do you think that the Skins had a better defense than Tennessee this past season?

Bob 0119 wrote:I think the D-line's problem is more about defensive scheme than an inability to sack the QB.

I think their priority is (as it was under Williams) containment moreso than pressure. Keep the QB in front of you, stop the run, disrupt the pass by getting your hands up, watch for the screen, etc.

Bob, you are correct... and it's actually refreshing to see when someone uses logic and facts to support an argument and perspective.

Several players and coaches spoke specifically about this a few months ago and I personally posted an article about it with direct quotes from players. The lack of a pass rush is mostly by design and was confirmed in the article posted on Redskins.com. Containment was the paramount concern and strategy employed by both Williams and Blache.

Now, I agree that we could use a stud DT in the mix. I would also agree that our d-line isn't as bad as some would assert. I actually believe the scheme will change somewhat this coming year and more emphasis will be placed on a better pass rush. Blache spoke of this recently and said a better pass rush in the future would help with creating turnovers, an area of weakness from this 4th ranked defense.

CanesSkins26 wrote:You can also point to all the statistics that you want, but when I think of elite NFL defenses I certainly don't think of ours. I think of the Steelers, Ravens, and Titans, aggressive teams that get after the qb and force turnovers. We are not at that level and wont be until we can generate a consistent pass rush.

Well, the Steelers and Ravens ranked 1st and 2nd respectfully in total defense. The Titans ranked 7th, three spots lower than the 4th ranked Skins. Just because your "favorite" ( ) team doesn't come to your mind when thinking of elite defenses, the numbers prove otherwise and can't be discounted.

So do you think that the Skins had a better defense than Tennessee this past season?

Me, too...in coverage. Up front, not so much. Tennessee was never right after the Jets (our farm team) whupped 'em.
What they had after that was a pretty good offense, and a bunch of me-first guys on defense.
I wonder...do they regret stomping that Terrible Towel after the last rematch with the Steelers?

"Sit back and watch the Redskins.
SOMETHING MAGICAL IS ABOUT TO BEGIN!"
JPFair- A fan's fan. RIP, brother

CanesSkins26 wrote:You can also point to all the statistics that you want, but when I think of elite NFL defenses I certainly don't think of ours. I think of the Steelers, Ravens, and Titans, aggressive teams that get after the qb and force turnovers. We are not at that level and wont be until we can generate a consistent pass rush.

Well, the Steelers and Ravens ranked 1st and 2nd respectfully in total defense. The Titans ranked 7th, three spots lower than the 4th ranked Skins. Just because your "favorite" ( ) team doesn't come to your mind when thinking of elite defenses, the numbers prove otherwise and can't be discounted.

So do you think that the Skins had a better defense than Tennessee this past season?

I do.

Agreed. Are there positions where the Titans have better talent? Sure. But the numbers prove the Skins defense was better from an overall perspective. Additionally, looking at the compared schedules, the Skins played against better offenses.

Trample the Elderly wrote:I'd love to blow it up. It would hurt more than it would help. There are a lot of coaches and GMs that would never touch this team because we can stick to a plan for more than a season or two. The dead cap would burn us heavily if we cut as many players as some suggest. If you want to play with nothing but rookies, undrafted rookies, and lose most of the season then I could see that. I could actually go for that. But . . . . who else would be able to stomach a 4-12 season?

I would cheer for a young team while it lost if I could do so knowing that we were being smart about our long-term future. Weren't we very recently 5-11 under the current method of player acquisition? If we can do that with young blood while gathering massive cap space ... why not?

Look, let's suppose we tinker, pay a few more huge contracts, squeeze in under the cap, everything breaks right for us, we make the playoffs, and win a post-season game or two. Where are we then? One year older and fighting to get under the cap again.

I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see. And we might not even suck. How much did Springs play? How about Daniels? When Portis made big gainers wasn't it because of giant holes Mason could have run through. Did we play our best defense without Jason Taylor? Those 2 picks and that 8.5 million would be nice to have.

Bob 0119 wrote:We were also more recently 9-7 and 8-8 respectively under the current plan.

Yes ... and 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, 10-6, and 5-11 as well and where are we? Old. Cap-room-less. Virtually pickless. In street clothes collecting paychecks. I wonder if we could go 8-8, 7-9, 5-11, 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, 9-7, and 8-8 with some young guys.

BnGhog wrote:If you guys take anything from the SB. Please take the fact that the best "Team" won. The team with the "Star WRs" did not. That’s because it’s not about Stars. The Steelers play for each other.

An interesting example. Of course we would keep a few vets to "groom" others as you say. You think 25 to 35 vets is enough? I do - particularly the ones who actually play for their paychecks and who also aren't the reason we are strapped for cap room.

I posted to a Pitt forum and asked about their style. Here is a partial list I got from them of people they did not resign recently:

*Antwan Randel ELPlaxico BurressChris HopeClark HaggansJoey Porter

Just to name a few of the recent players we didn't resign when they became free agents. There's a lot more if you want to go back to the entire Cowher era.

Many of these names are HUGE! Yet the Steelers don't seem to suffer (as you said) from lack of "team." We don't have too either. Are Portis and Taylor really good for our team spirit? One of them is forever "gaffing" on the radio about how good he'd be with a decent line while the other has been with us for all of a year and was almost certainly no more effective than any rookie would have been.

There is also a lot to be said for simple youthful enthusiasm and hunger.

Gibbs went 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, and 9-7. By pattern, we would have gone 4-12, 8-8, 3-13, 7-9, 2-14, 6-10 if he hadn't retired.

Zorn stepped in and went 8-8 in a pattern that should have been 4-12. So, if Zorn's figures run the same as Gibbs figures, than we should be 16-0 next year!

I know what you're asking yourself. How in the world would Gibbs' figures be relavent to Zorn's success?

I know, I asked myself the same thing.

To point at this "current system's" failures from two years ago seemed to be a bit of a stretch for me today as well. That's why I pointed out that the past two years were BETTER than the 5-11 season they had two years ago.

It has no bearing on what they do today, or even tomorrow. Sure they could go 0-16, though that is as likely as them going 16-0 (that's why the Lions were the first to do it last year).

For all I know, the team could go 5-11 next year, but it will be a different team, with a different coach that had nothing to do with the 5-11 record from before.

“If you grow up in metro Washington, you grow up a diehard Redskins fan. But if you hate your parents, you grow up a Cowboys fan.”-Jim Lachey

DarthMonk wrote:Marty came here. Payroll was a then-record 100 MILLION dollars. Marty kept 22 guys. He replaced 31. 13 of the new guys were ROOKIES. He FIRED VINNY. He reduced payroll to 53 MILLION by letting go of almost all the high priced talent (can you say Deion?).

We went 0-5 and then 8-3 the rest of the way with TONY BANKS at QB.

We need to do this again. Let go of (release, trade, whatever makes sense) virtually every high priced guy. Accumulate compensatory picks. Pick LINEMEN. Find a runner. They are everywhere. If the hole is there Rock or Betts or some other guy (did we cut a guy named Mason?) we never heard of who costs less than 1 million can run through it and if it's not there he can slam it up in there for a yard or two. We should NEVER spend big bucks or 1st round picks on a runner.

Many teams have shown us we could be better than we are now in TWO years while getting YOUNGER and CHEAPER.

DarthMonk

I agree with you for the most part. Although, maybe not to the drastic level you suggest. but we do need to nearly start over with the O-line, WR corps, LB's (except Fletcher), D-line, K and P. So, I could see moving about 12-15 players out of there or at least offering them a reduced salary to stay.

But, can we wait to do this until after the 2009 season? I mean, with only 4 picks, how much rebuilding can we do? Let's offer some players a reduced salary to stay. Then give everyone a one year ultimatum that they will be gone based on their 2009 performance. Hopefully we can keep all of our 2010 picks and trade a couple of players, out of a group of Springs, ARE, A. Carter, J. Taylor, Portis, T.Collins, for a couple additional picks.

Not quite sure what you're getting at below (quoted post). I wasn't really doing any kind of "dance" with the numbers. They are simply Snyder era W-L records and except for a year with Marty I think we've used the current player acquisition plan the whole time - not just 2 years ... and where are we? We are an old 8-8 team that can oscillate from 5-11 to 10-6 depending on the breaks. We can be that same team without being old and capped out. And if we build for the future we can maybe be a 10-6 team that can oscillate between 7-9 and 12-4 depending on the breaks.

I wasn't trying to point out any pattern - just showing what we have been and what we are are under the way Danny and Vinnie do it. Do you think they do it well? I don't. (They cap out well and they do a good job of spending picks on people who don't play)

Wouldn't it be great if we thought "we are close" because we actually were and at the same time actually had the financial wherewithal to go get a key game changer as opposed to being what we are, thinking "we are close" and constantly tryng massage the cap so we can overpay to plug holes so we can remain the aging 8-8 oscillator?

Again, I for one, am perfectly willing to suck for a few years in the interests of long-term prosperity ... and what I propose may not even imply sucking.

And yes, as you say, a 5-11 record next year would have nothing to do with an earlier 5-11 under another coach ... I never said it would. BUT ... both those 5-11 records WOULD have something to do with the way we acquire players.

DarthMonk

Bob 0119 wrote:Well, if ya wanna dance with numbers, I'll play.

Gibbs went 6-10, 10-6, 5-11, and 9-7. By pattern, we would have gone 4-12, 8-8, 3-13, 7-9, 2-14, 6-10 if he hadn't retired.

Zorn stepped in and went 8-8 in a pattern that should have been 4-12. So, if Zorn's figures run the same as Gibbs figures, than we should be 16-0 next year!

I know what you're asking yourself. How in the world would Gibbs' figures be relavent to Zorn's success?

I know, I asked myself the same thing.

To point at this "current system's" failures from two years ago seemed to be a bit of a stretch for me today as well. That's why I pointed out that the past two years were BETTER than the 5-11 season they had two years ago.

It has no bearing on what they do today, or even tomorrow. Sure they could go 0-16, though that is as likely as them going 16-0 (that's why the Lions were the first to do it last year).

For all I know, the team could go 5-11 next year, but it will be a different team, with a different coach that had nothing to do with the 5-11 record from before.

DarthMonk wrote:I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see.

Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.

You’ve been hitting slices into the woods all day long, so you drastically change your stance, over-compensate, and now you’re duck-hooking it into the lake. You can’t over-compensate. I think some fans are so gun-shy about signing a free agent that you want to stop the practice altogether.

Free agency is a legitimate and strategic way to upgrade your team and is now widely practiced around the entire landscape of the NFL. However, and I think this is the part that some Skins fans get carried away with, is that free agent signings don’t automatically guarantee a Super Bowl. Even good draft choices don’t guarantee anything. You’d hope that particular unit would improve, but to think that it should guarantee anything is not logical. In a team sport, there are other, equally important units that have to pull their weight and execute for the entire team to be successful.

The Cowboys are a perfect example. Jerry Jones has tried to sign and trade for damn near every top player he can get his hands on. They’ve even had some very good draft choices. Yet it hasn’t resulted in a single post-season victory in well over a decade.

Whether or not a draft choice or free agent signing actually pans out can't be accurately foretasted, it's simply part of the game, for every team. If you simply recognize ahead of time that not every draft choice or free agent signing will pan out or guarantee a Super Bowl, then you have a better understanding of the game and what FO’s around the league deal with every year.

I pretty much agree with releasing some of the high priced, past their prime, non-contributing vets in the spirit of getting younger. I also agree that a philosophy change is needed, especially from the perspective of always trading away draft picks. You can still emphasis the draft while grabbing a few free agents at the same time.

I think there's pretty solid evidence that Gibbs and Williams have been running the show for during Gibbs' era. Since Gibbs retired and Vinny was promoted, I believe its clear 2008 was really Vinny's first opportunity to be the guy. I actually think he did fairly well with the draft and they stayed quite in free agency the past two years. Therefore, I think they're already in somewhat of a rebuilding process and a philosophy change, evidenced by ten rookies making the opening day 53-man roster and staying quite in free agency. Hopefully they’ll stay the course, and I agree this is a big test for the FO.

DarthMonk wrote:I'd rather suck for two years, be young and hungry, be 30-40 million under the cap and have full drafts as far as the eye can see.

Except you don’t want to over-compensate. Why would you want to be 30-40 million under the cap every year? What’s the purpose of that? If the short answer is to have money to re-sign current players, that’s valid. But I don’t think the Redskins have ever been forced to release a good player solely due to not being able to afford him. I’m not sure I’d ever want to be 30-40 million under the cap. That would mean you’ve left money on the table that could have been used to upgrade a particular unit on your team. But that doesn’t mean I’d want to be $0.02 under either.

I'm talking 2 years bro - not being that far under year after year. I never even hinted at being that far under every year. I'm talking about having a lot of picks and actually having the money to sign them and a game changer - as opposed to wiggling under the cap somehow every year. The vast majority of what you said makes sense but again - I'm talking about making the franchise healthy in a few years and improving long term viability. I simply would rather be in the position I am quoted as supporting than the position we are in now and have been in for years.

And being that far under does not mean you left money on the table. It means you took huge cap hits for a year of cuts and now you have the reward of being way under. Again, Marty took payroll from 100 mil (that high due to Deion-like cuts) down to 53 mil. That's what we had heading into the next season. We clearly misused the excellent position Marty left us in.